E 469 

.061 
Copy 1 




E 469 
.061 
Copy 1 



THE SUllRENDER OF MASON AND SLIDELL. 

SPEECH 

. / OF 

HON. A-. S. piYEN, OF N. Y., 



DELIVERED 



In the HousG of Representatives, January 7, 1862. 

D 



-> 




Mr. DIVEN said : 

Mr. Chairman : I am not willing that the debate upon the question 
relative to the regularity of the surrender of the prisoners. taken from 
the Trent should be left where the previous question left it this morn- 
ing.* It lift the country in the attitude of having submitted to humili- 
ation at the arrogant demand of a foreign Power — ay, sir, an humble 
humiliation. Some gentlemen put it upon the ground of a humiliation 
merely because a demand, insolent and arrogant in its term's, was 
made. Another gentleman put it upon the ground of necessity, that 
because we were hard run by our domestic enemies, we would submit 
to wrong from a neutral Power. Sir, I am not willing to have the atti- 
tude of the Qountry left in that position. I do not believe that it is 

•^ judgment of this House that it is the position of the country. I 
do not believe ' thjat it is the judgment of foreign civilized Christian 
nations that that is the attitude of this Government. I venture.to say 
that when this proceeding shall be scanned by all the other, nations of 
the world, the only people that will be found to denominate it a humili- 
ation on the part of this country will be that self-constituted confede- 
racy known as the Southern Confederated States. They have already, 
through their journals, in almost the exact language it has been done 
here, denominated it a very humiliating thing on the part of this Gov- 
ernment. They are distressed at the humiliation to which this country 
has been subjected. If we are to judge from what their journals and 
public men say, it pains them that this country has humiliated itself 
to the British lion. Ah, sir, I know it pains them ; but the pain arises 
from another cause ; they would like to see this country humiliated ; 
that is the wish of their hearts ; and they would have liked to see an- 
other thing ; they would have liked to see the councils of this nation, 
instead of being controlled by calm and deliberate judgment, yielded 
up to the passions and feelings of men, and the country plunged madly 
into a war with all the Powers of Europe. That is the hope, the last 

\ .(1 



XJfc 



lingering hope of the rebel Scheme : it is that they may involve us in a 
war with otlicr Powers. 

Now, sir, I would not submit to humiliation to escape a war jvith 
any Power under heaven, because I believe that such submission never 
results in accomplishing the object for which it is made. If the British 
Government Avishcs a war with this nation, they can find pretexts ' 
enough to have it ; but, sir, we all know this, that when two nations 
are engaged in war, and there are -neutral Powers and close commercial 
relations existing between the belligerent and neutrp,l Powers, the atti- 
tude of the belligerenT;s towards neutral Powers is a most delicate and 
complicated one ; and in all such cases great caution should "be exer- 
cised, both by the neutrals and belligerents, to avoid collisions. This, 
sir, is the attitude of this Government; it has close an'd intimate com- 
mercial relations with England and with France ; the ships of England 
and of France enter all our ports ;. they feed their inhabitants with 
bread raised upon our farms, and they have supplied their factories 
with cotton raised upon our plantations ; they touch at our ports on 
their way to their West India possessions, and on their return ; and 
common prudence dictates that the nicest scrutiny should be had, to 
the end that we may avoid any cause of offence. 

Now, sir, the position that I assume is, that there has been nothing 
more than this proper caution exercised, and that there has been no 
humiliatton. Jurists may talk wisely and learnedly, as the "gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Thomas] always does when he talks, with 
regard to questions of international and commercial law. Even in 
times of peace there are no questions involving so many intricacies as 
those relating to maritime and international law. Those intricacies 
are rendered tenfold more difficult in time of war, and authorities can 
be found settling almost any question in almost any way upon these 
subjects. But I venture to say that, with all his reseafch and skill, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts has never found precisely a parallel 
case to this. 

Let us consider for a moment how this question arose, and how it 
was met -by the British Government. In the first place, let us con- 
sider the positions of the two Governments. The enemies of this Gov- 
ernment, who are seeking its overthrow through their rebellion, began 
long since to prepare the way for their su'ccess. They not only robbed 
our arsenals and our army, but they labored to create prejudice against 
us in Europe. They had their emissaries in every commercial capftal 
in Europe to instill into the minds of the merchants and manufacturers 
and traders there the necessity, in case of a separation, of their siding 
with the South, and to show to them the great advantage of opening the 
Southern ports to free trade with them ; and thus the commercial and 
trading mind of Europe was prepared, and its sympathies were years 
ago enlisted on the side of the South in this struggle that they have 
been secretly bringing upon the country. The seed thus sown had 
grown, and the commercial mind of England had a strong attachment 
to the South, and strong expectations from the South. That state of 
feeling existing, every circumstance that was calculated to provoke 



them ac^ainst the North would be seized upon, and the most would be 
made of it. Well, sir, having considered what the state of feeling was, let 
us look what was_ the report made b^y the captain of the Trent on her 
arrival hi a British port. That captain reported to his Government 
that while he was navigating his ship from Havana, a neutral port, to his 
own country, a shot was fired across his bows by an American man-of- 
war ; that a second* shot v/as fired, very nearly hitting his vessel, and 
then an officer came on board. And what djd that officer do, as reported 1 
He did not come on board claiming that they were in contraband trade, 
and asking that the vessel should go into port to submit to an. admiralty 
trial— nothing of the kind ; but it was reported that he came on board 
and took from the vessel tw<? passengers by force, and made no other 
search or inquiry ; he wanted the captain of the mail steamer to go on 
board his ship, which the captain declined to do, and then he left. That 
was the representation before the British Government at the time thq 
communication was made by Earl Russell to our Secretary of State. 
I say, sir, that if at the time England was engaged in a war with 
Russia, the captain of one of our mail steamers between Havana and 
New York had reported to this, Government that on his way between 
•those two ports. he had been stopped on the high seas by a British war 
vessel, and two of his passengers taken by force, we would have sent to 
England a more insolent demand than came from England to us in 
this case — ay, sir, if they were to do such a thing to-day, if such a 
report were to come to us now^ I know Yankee! pluck and spirit well 
enough to know that we should make quite as arrogant a demand as was 
made by England on this nation. 

I say that, under the circum,--tances of the report made by the cap- 
tain of the Trent to the British Government, the demand is in every 
way respectful. Why, sir", it expresses the hope that this was not an 
act atithorized by our Government, and that the pacific relations between 
the two countries may not be disturbed by it, and it instructs the 
resident minister here to submit these considerations- to our Secretary of 
State. They are submitted, and they are replied to with equal dignity, 
and not with humiliation. The circumstances under which the vess'el 
was boarded, and the prisoners taken off, are stated, with the correc- 
tions necessary to place the action of our commander in a fair and jus- 
tifiable light. That is one of the proprieties of the communication of 
the Secretary of -State to the British Government; while he assures the 
British Government that no insult was intended to tlie British nation, 
he also assures them that this Government fully justifies the act of the 
commander of .our ship in conducting the boarding of the Trent, and 
the taking of the prisoners as he did. But then, having finished that 
justification of our officer, and having disclaimed any intended insult, 
and after informing the British Government that this whole proceeding 
was done without any knowledge or preconcert or direction of this Gov- 
ernment—which is a perfect answer to all questions of insult that can 
be raised between the two countries— after doing that, he then, with 
great ability, (and I always knew that when the Secretary of State 
came to treat this question he would treat it with ability,) examined 



I&/1 



r 



the question of the legality of the act in the spirit of a keen lawyer, as 
well as a far-seeing, liberal-minded statesman ; and no man has yet 
criticised with a lawyer's criticism that opinion of the Secretary of 
State. Even my friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. Thomas,] I think, 
when he comes to read it, will find that he h-as failed in his able argu- 
ment to answer the objections in the mind of the Secretary of State to 
the legality of that seizure. 

Now, sir, it is not strange that the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
and other gentlemen, should differ with the Secretary of State. It is 
not at all strange that .lawyers should differ. We differ upon legal 
questions a great deal less difficult than.this. 

But, sir, I propose for a moment to investigate the soundness, and 
to show tlie reasonableness, of the principle laid down by the Secretary 
of State in his objections to the legality and validity of the seizure. 
Remember that he takes issue with the French Minister — an enlight- 
ened statesman — upon some of the questions of international law. He 
takes issue with Earl Russell upon some questions. He insists, and I 
think with great force and clearness shows, that it is the right of bel- 
ligerents—just as 'the gentleman from Massachusetts contends — not 
only to seize dispatches as contraband of war, but also to seize the 
vehicle that bears the dispatches as contraband of war. The Secretary 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts thus far are agreed. They are 
agreed, I may say, upon every question but two — the question of neces- 
sity and the question of legality. ' ' 

Now, sir, upon the question of legality, under Avell-established rules 
of^international law, upon the seizure of a vessel bearing contraband, it 
is not left to the officer making the seizure at his arbitrary Avill to de- 
termine what he will regard as contraband and what he will carry away 
as a prize ; but it is his duty to take the vessel into port, where she 
can be tried by the laws of admiralty. But, says the gentleman, the 
complaint in this case is that our officer did not do enough — that he 
did not inflict injury enougn. By no means, sir. If a vessel thus 
seized is carried into port, and the judgment of the court of admiralty 
is that she was not engaged in contraband trade, the court orders that 
remuneration shall be made for the detention of the vessel. That can- 
not be done if it is left to every naval officer to determine when a ves- 
sel shall be taken and when it shall not. 

Let us look at what the adoption of such a rule of maritime law 
would lead to. There is now a constant trade carried on across tlve 
Channel between France and England — two friendly Powers. Supjjoso 
our cruisers should be stationed in the British Cliannel and fire giins 
across the bows of every ship crossing the Channel, and bring her to 
and board her, and witliout any admiralty ex'anrination take from her 
whatever they pleased, upon the mere responsibility of the officers in 
command ; could England or France, or any other nation, submit to 
such a rule of maritime law? I hold, sir, that they never could, that 
they never will, and that they never ought to. I insist that the rule 
contended for by the Secretary of State is not only sustained by prece- 
dent, but that it is the rule that ought to prevail. I insist that the es- 



tablishraent of the opposite rule would be most dangerous, and that it 
would embarrass trade to such an extent that it wouhl be equivalent to 
a suspension of commercial relations between friendly Powers in the 
neighborhood of belligerents. I say, then, that so far from the Secre- 
tary of State having submittedxto any necessity, so far from his having 
resorted to any subterfuge, to any pretended construction of maritime 
and international law for the purpose of escaping from the consequences 
of this act, he has only adhered to a sound, wholesome rule — a rule for 
which this country has always contended. No rule has been more 
strenuously insisted on in the world than this rule has been by this 
Government; and if we have done anything that is not sanctioned by- 
the law of nations, so far from our being humiliated by repairing the 
wrong, the country rise%in glory before the world'as slie renders justice 
against the excited passions of her people. Sir, the ruler, in a repre- 
sentative Government, who can withstand the pressure of popular pas- 
sion ; who, when a people are convulsed by the excitement of momentary 
passion, and when judgment has given place to feeling, can calmly view 
a. question and deeide it dispassionately and impartially, and in such a 
manner as shall meet the commendation of an enlightened world, de- 
serves higher praise, ten thousand times higher, than he who, when the 
people are all right, merely floats along on the popular current. 
■ Sir, I know the comments that ma}^ be made upon a remark like 
this. I know it may be said in reply that it is not democratic. I have 
always regarded myself as about as democratic as most of my neigh- 
bors ; but I have seen, and who has not seen, the public, when excite- 
ment and passion rule the hour, committing excesses, which on sober 
second thought they deeply regretted. I do not assail the populace or 
popular government, but I say that when the. popular mind is inflamed 
by excitement we should always wait. It is dangerous for this House 
to act under popular excitement ; and I think that one of the great 
dangers of the hour is, that this legislative body, that our generals in 
the field, that the President in his position, and that all the ofiicers of 
the Government may yield to the excited and. impatient passions of 
the people, and forget their duty to be guided by reason and judg- 
ment. 

Now, sir, we have escaped — and I venture to say the judgment of the 
world will justify and honor the ground upon which Ave have escaped — 
a collision with one of the great Powers of Europe ; a collision which, 
if it had taken place, would probably have involved the other Powers 
of Europe, and have led to consequences that no man can foresee. I 
congratulate the country that we have escaped it. I feel none of the 
humiliation that attaches to others, and years hence nobody will feel 
that any humiliation attaches to this act ; years hence we yiay cite this 
precedent, when upon some occasion a foreign vessel shall board one of 
•our ships, and take from it some men who are sailing under its flag ; we 
shall then have this example to point to in -support of the rule for which 
we have long contended. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have said what I desired to say upon this 
subject. It is one of importance. It would, indeed, be a misfortune 



to this country to have it admitted in her legislative councils that she 
had submitted to base humiliation on the arrogant demand of a foreign 
Power. That would be an equall}^ humiliating attitude which other 
gentlemen have taken — that she had submitted to a positive wrong upon 
an arrogant demand, under protest, and with a declaration that she will 
hereafter wipe it out. Suppose our Secretary of State had said our 
officer was right ; the Government is right ; these are traitors that w-e 
are bound by the laws of nations, and the civil law of our own country, 
to hang, and it is wrong for us to give them up ; but because you are" 
more powerful than we are just now, because we are hard pressed by a 
rebellion in our midst, we are going to give them up, and flog you after- 
wards ! How do you think such a communication from our Secretary 
of State would have been received by the Briti^i Government ? As an 
apology 1 As a satisfiaction ? As a disclaimer of the act 1 Could 
they with any credit to themselves have escaped from war then? It 
w^ould be saying to them, we cannot whip you now, but w^e are going 
to do it as soon as we can ; and that would have been satisfactory 
in the opinion of some gentlemen ! Mark you, it is not Slidell and 
Mason that the English people care anything about. They are as in- 
significant as the rest of the "Yankees" are in the eyes of the British 
Government. It is not that that they care about ; but, sir, it'is the 
flag under which British tars have Vv'on such glory for their country ; it 
is that flag which has borne the commerce of the world to every shore ; 
it is that flag which has extorted respect from every quarter of the 
globe; they love it; they honor it ; they are as tender of its glory as 
we are of that of the stars and stripes. The British flag is as dear to 
the British tar as the stars and stripes are to the American tar ; and 
he will shed his blood as. freely, and fight in its defence as gallantly, as 
any other people in the world. It is not Slidell and Mason they care 
about ; it is that. I do not care a fig for Slidell and Mason. I think 
they are as insignificant as any men can be, and that their insignifi- 
cance is becoming daily more apparent. It is not them I care about, 
but it is the American flag, the honor of the country; for when a 
country lays down its honor, it lays down all that is worth preserving. 
Sooner than humble this nation in national degradation and disgrace, I 
will let it shiver into fragments. There is no salvation for a nation at 
the' expense of its honor. I remember — and we all do who sometimes 
visit the play — the story of a prisoner who was offered his life upon the 
condition of the dishonor of his wife; and while the wife was devoted to 
that husband, and bound to him by the strongest human passions, she 
scorned to save his life by the sacrifice of her honor. No, sir ; let us 
save this country honorably if we can. Let us save.it by manly strug- 
gles on the battle-field against the hosts of rebel conspirators. Let us 
bring up the cannon and the musket and all the elements of strife, and 
let us put down this rebellion in honor; but, do what we will, let us 
never -consent to any sacrifice of that honor. 



r 



; 



WASHINGTON, t). C. 

SCAMMELL & CO., PRINTERS, COR. SECOND & INDIANA AVENUfii 

1862. 



\ 



LlBRftR'^ O"" 



CONGRESS 



ill 



5I13 700 922 5« 



